Question:
>But a Geo Metro and a Ford Festiva are quite comparable. And >the Ford Festiva goes only about 75% the distance on a gallon >of gasoline. Since the Geo is an import, this exacerbates our >balance of trade problems.
Both the Festiva and Geo are imports. At least one person here would take issue with your assertion that the Festiva and Geo are comparable. She drove both, and could not fit into the Geo, but found the Festiva comfortable. (This is a second-hand personal anecdote, I agree, and I can’t tell you if this difference in interior room has anything whatsoever to do with the question of fuel economy; it may or may not. All it indicates is that the two vehicles are not interchangable.) >Yes, higher fuel prices are sufficient to increase the efficiency >of the average car on the road, if you’re willing to shift to foreign >auto makers. Our domestic manufacturers seem very slow to respond to >the call for greater efficiency.
Our domestic manufacturers can respond rather quickly, in some ways. For instance, changing transmission gear ratios, automatic transmission shift points and intake manifold tuning and cam profiles can make a significant change in fuel economy at cruise, at the cost of power and other things the customer wants today. These smaller changes can be put in without a lot of re-engineering costs and grief. Note that the customer will continue to want power etc. as long as fuel prices are low. It looks like they are now high enough to get people’s attention; look for new tuning in the ‘92 models from Detroit now that economy is a selling point again. > CAFE might just save their business >for them, but more importantly it might get fuel-efficient cars into >our marketplace faster without trashing our economy further by >favoring foreign manufacturers.
Excuse me, but it is exactly and precisely CAFE standards (and bankable CAFE points) which have allowed the Japanese manufacturers to produce high-profit, low-mileage luxury sedans which Detroit was prohibited (by CAFE point requirements and economical volume considerations) from even attempting to compete with. >PS: I might ask: given that Ford intended to produce a high-mpg 4-seat >commuter, can you explain why their product does so poorly compared >to the Suzuki (Geo) product? The cars are the same size (actually, >the Geo’s a little roomier), but the Festiva’s highway rating is (as >I recall) 42mpg, while the Geo Metro’s is 58mpg. Why? This isn’t a slam, >but I expect Ford management must be asking themselves the same question. >The answer might be central to the debate about the need for CAFE.
Beats the hell out of me. Both vehicles are made in Korea (I have been corrected, I thought the Festiva was Brazilian, I misremembered; the VW Fox is Brazilian), so origin doesn’t account for it either. If someone wants to pay me to study the differences between the two vehicles and their fuel economy, I’d be more than happy. Gimme the wind tunnel, the flow meters, the torque gauges… So far as CAFE standards go, Ford could not care less about the Festiva’s 42 MPG rating. The Festiva counts against the import CAFE quota, not the domestic CAFE quota, so improving the Festiva’s economy doesn’t allow Ford to sell anything else and pursuing it is a waste of money. (I told you, CAFE regulations are perverse.) — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
> the point; a Geo Metro and a station wagon are not commensurable, > they serve very different needs.
But a Geo Metro and a Ford Festiva are quite comparable. And the Ford Festiva goes only about 75% the distance on a gallon of gasoline. Since the Geo is an import, this exacerbates our balance of trade problems. Yes, higher fuel prices are sufficient to increase the efficiency of the average car on the road, if you’re willing to shift to foreign auto makers. Our domestic manufacturers seem very slow to respond to the call for greater efficiency. CAFE might just save their business for them, but more importantly it might get fuel-efficient cars into our marketplace faster without trashing our economy further by favoring foreign manufacturers. Steve Frysinger PS: I might ask: given that Ford intended to produce a high-mpg 4-seat commuter, can you explain why their product does so poorly compared to the Suzuki (Geo) product? The cars are the same size (actually, the Geo’s a little roomier), but the Festiva’s highway rating is (as I recall) 42mpg, while the Geo Metro’s is 58mpg. Why? This isn’t a slam, but I expect Ford management must be asking themselves the same question. The answer might be central to the debate about the need for CAFE.
Response:
>I don’t have this information. You’ll have to take Ford’s word for it. >If they were BS’ing, you can bet somebody would have leaked it.
Sure. Is anyone else uncomfortable basing U.S. policy decisions on Ford’s word? >Why? What’s so different between a 58mpg Ford and an Escort? >They used to build something close; the diesel Escort/Lynx. >The difference is (SURPRISE!), almost nobody bought them!
No, the difference is (NO SURPRISE) diesel vs. gas. We *do* like our gas-burning cars here in the U.S. of A. >Fine. Because I don’t think the Gov’t should subsidize a >(potentially) noncompetitive industry I’m heartless? >No. Because you want to shift the ONLY product mix which can be >built in this country to one which has been NON-PROFITABLE here >due to customer preferences (who do you think car companies build >for, anyway?), and therefore one which Detroit has no experience >making, thereby tilting the playing field in the favor of the >imports so that Detroit cannot get the profits in the short term >to do the development needed to survive in the long term, putting >everyone in Detroit out of work for no useful purpose…. >you are heartless.
Which is it, Russ? Did Ford produce a 50mpg+ Escort, or didn’t they? If they did it once, surely they could do it again. Certainly, they have *some* experience. And I don’t *want* to shift anyone’s product mix–although I won’t accuse you of lying. I just want more efficient cars and reduced consumption. >You are also dishonest, because I *never* asked for Detroit to >be subsidized. To put such words in my mouth is to be a liar.
No, but you *did* argue against CAFE on the grounds that U.S. automakers wouldn’t be able to compete. What’s the difference? >>How does an increased CAFE standard increase the price of fuel? >It doesn’t, that’s just the historical tendancy for prices, gasoline >especially. >You ignore history. Between 1975 and mid-1990, the real price of >gasoline fell to historic lows.
Perhaps you’re not looking at the big picture, Russ. Plot the price of gas since the dawn of the automobile. I think you’ll find the general trend is upward. >Of course, if you can claim that I want to subsidize Detroit, I >suppose you could claim that too… equivalent truth value.
I’m glad you’re seeing it my way. :-) >I understand now. The sort of logic which can pull "Russ Cage wants >to subsidize Detroit" and "The price of gasoline has historically >risen" out of the air can also conclude "CAFE standards make sense, >despite the fact that they accomplish less to reduce fuel usage at >a much higher cost than taxing fuel does."
By George, I think he’s got it! :-) Really, though, CAFE standards *do* make sense if you want to encourage more efficient cars. Fuels taxes make sense if you want to encourage reduced consumption. Why do you seem so incapable of realizing that I support both? >To encourage not only reduced consumption of gasoline, but efficient >use of that that is consumed. >To go back to the M1 tank example, if people find M1 tanks >useful but only drive them 10 miles/year, who are YOU to >tell them they are not being "efficient"? Why do YOU care >HOW they achieve reduced consumption, as long as they do?
Who am I to care? I’m a citizen of planet Earth, that’s who I am. I consider it my duty to fight inefficiency. You may not agree with my crusade, but I’m not going to go away. Perhaps some day in the future when pollution is no longer a threat we can relax the efficiency requirements. Until then, it makes no sense to let people waste resources and pollute wantonly. >It is not for you to judge what is efficient, unless someone >died and appointed you God. People have different requirements >for vehicles. They will have different characteristic fuel >consumption. If the only thing that matters to you is that >people be able to travel at least 40 miles per gallon of fuel, >perhaps we should conclude that you have judged that traffic >jams, rather than reduced gasoline use, are a good thing.
Repeat after me: Dave wants *both* CAFE *and* higher fuel taxes. >I have cited two ways in which CAFE discourages reduced consumption >and you ignore them.
No I haven’t, I’ve supported higher fuel taxes *too* as a way of directly discouraging consumption. >You quoted them, yet you ignore them. You >completely ignore the point that reduced consumption, to avoid the >hazards of imported energy and pollution, is the whole point of the >exercise, and you blythely skip over it.
Please reread my articles and see if you can spot where I’ve advocated higher taxes too. It’s not exactly hidden. >What if we ignore CAFE and big, inefficient cars become so popular and >inexpensive that the increased cost to run them due to fuel taxes >doesn’t sufficiently deter their use? >It doesn’t happen. Look at American buying patterns after fuel >price shocks. (Oh, I forgot, you can’t read history books.) >Well, I’ll tell you what happened: Toyota Corollas became very >popular, and gas guzzlers were suddenly passe’.
But the story doesn’t end there. Gas prices dropped, and cars got larger and larger. Only CAFE prevented the bottom from dropping out of the MPG market. Until Iraq entered the picture… >What if we ignore fuel taxes and people just drive their cars >40% farther, spending the same money and burning the same amount >of fuel (and moving farther away from urban centers, promoting >urban sprawl)? See, I can play this rhetorical game too.
I support taxes, too. Do you see why both CAFE and taxes complement each other, now? >So, inefficiency should be subsidized in the name of efficiency? >This makes less than zero sense, it makes anti-sense.
Only if you *only* have CAFE, which I DON’T SUPPORT! >You keep harping on the "Tax or CAFE" angle. I’m not a CAFE advocate, >I support a hybrid tax/CAFE approach.
There, I knew it would be easy to find. >Well, er, when I said "we" I meant "We the People", not "you and I". >And what We want is less gasoline usage, less gasoline wastage, fewer >government subsidies of noncompetitive industries, less pollution, >etc. >So what you prescribe is something which arguably reduces some >wastage in *new vehicles only* (subsidizing excess driving and >older, inefficient vehicles), has only an indirect and delayed >effect on gasoline consumption, kicks the legs out from under >a competitive domestic industry by suddenly making it play on >the territory to which its competition is accustomed and it is >not, insures that older, dirtier vehicles will be on the road >longer than would otherwise be the case by cutting the supply >of newer, cleaner replacements to serve the same need…
Of course if I didn’t support higher taxes too, the above would be more relevant. I’m terribly sorry to be so repetitious, but I don’t seem to be making my point. — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>>You are also dishonest, because I *never* asked for Detroit to >be subsidized. To put such words in my mouth is to be a liar. >No, but you *did* argue against CAFE on the grounds that U.S. >automakers wouldn’t be able to compete. What’s the difference?
Gosh, these arguments are getting emotional. A subsidy is when the government gives an advantage to one company or another (like, CAFE is a subsidy to those experienced in small cars). Leaving the market alone (ie. no CAFE) is not a subsidy. >I understand now. The sort of logic which can pull "Russ Cage wants >to subsidize Detroit" and "The price of gasoline has historically >risen" out of the air can also conclude "CAFE standards make sense, >despite the fact that they accomplish less to reduce fuel usage at >a much higher cost than taxing fuel does." >By George, I think he’s got it! :-) Really, though, CAFE standards >*do* make sense if you want to encourage more efficient cars. Fuels >taxes make sense if you want to encourage reduced consumption. Why do >you seem so incapable of realizing that I support both?
CAFE standards are at best slightly helpful, at worst, totally redundant or destructive in producing efficient cars. The price of gas is a major influence on the purchase decision of a new car. When fuel prices where high in the early eighties, CAFE standards were far exceded by the car companies (who were building less efficient cars than now) simply because of the mix of cars people purchased. Which of course makes the safety issue also a bit bogus, since people will choose to drive the less safe cars do to the price of gas anyway. Also – if the price of gas stays high, Ford may find itself in deep trouble anyway (without any CAFE standards); since they’ve decided to concentrate on large powerfull cars which may not sell. You guys seem to have spent a lot of energy discussing an issue which may affect things far less than you think. Then again – isn’t that what congress does on a regular basis anyway? 
. Jim Becker Disclaimer: My company does not have any opinions like these.
Response:
>>I don’t have this information. You’ll have to take Ford’s word for it. >If they were BS’ing, you can bet somebody would have leaked it. >Sure. Is anyone else uncomfortable basing U.S. policy decisions on >Ford’s word?
Is anyone else uncomfortable about automatically assuming that any major US corporation can be made to do anything which is demanded by Washington, no matter how unreasonable, and still survive? >>Why? What’s so different between a 58mpg Ford and an Escort? >They used to build something close; the diesel Escort/Lynx. >The difference is (SURPRISE!), almost nobody bought them! >No, the difference is (NO SURPRISE) diesel vs. gas. We *do* like our >gas-burning cars here in the U.S. of A.
You asked me to show you a 58 MPG Escort. I showed you something pretty damn close (I’m not sure of the exact fuel economy). Then you quibble about the type of fuel consumed (both petroleum). I refuse to participate in a discussion where someone insists on changing the terms whenever the results are not to his liking. Such arrogant sophistry does not deserve a serious response. >Which is it, Russ? Did Ford produce a 50mpg+ Escort, or didn’t they?
You say we *do* like our GAS cars here. If THOSE are the terms (it must be a GAS car), no, Ford never did. If it does NOT have to be a GAS car, Ford did, but it died due to massive buyer indifference. If diesel meets with such resistance, please note the consequences for alternate (non-flexible) fueled vehicles such as methanol or CNG. Neither is as available as diesel, and methanol has cold-start problems. >If they did it once, surely they could do it again. Certainly, they >have *some* experience.
See above. Also remember that the USA is not a command economy, and people do NOT have to buy what commissars decree to be produced. >And I don’t *want* to shift anyone’s product mix–although I won’t >accuse you of lying. I just want more efficient cars and reduced >consumption.
Look at the construction of cars now vs. 1973. There are almost no body-on-frame vehicles; they are all stressed-skin (unibody). There are no tail fins, huge bumpers, enormous stylish grilles. Every ornament which costs weight has been pared down or off. Research into new materials/processes is proceeding apace. Every reasonable structural change (including use of plastics) which can be mass-produced and reduces weight is being used. Look at the aerodynamics of cars now vs. 1973. There are almost no styles which have not been molded towards slippery teardrops. Coefficient of drag has dropped dramatically. Despite these economy measures, the size of cars has had to be pruned quite a bit to achieve what has been achieved. Every easy step has been taken already. Doing 43% more over the short term could only be done by making the *average* car *smaller* than an Escort. Now, this cannot honestly be called anything but radically changing the product mix. Whether you say you want it or not is irrelevant; what you say you want inevitably requires it. I will not mince words; you either lack the mental acuity to realize this, or the honesty to admit it. >You are also dishonest, because I *never* asked for Detroit to >be subsidized. To put such words in my mouth is to be a liar. >No, but you *did* argue against CAFE on the grounds that U.S. >automakers wouldn’t be able to compete. What’s the difference?
(Is acuity lacking here?) I argue for different, more immediate, more effective means of saving fuel (fuel taxes), which also has both immediate and long-term impact on pollution (by discouraging use of inefficient, polluting cars in the short term, and their ultimate replacement with newer, cleaner, more efficient cars), and you arrogantly twist this into a plea for a subsidy. I’ve asked you before to support your contention, that anti-CAFE equals "pro-subsidy". I ask you again to support it, or admit you have nothing. (I suppose I could re-post my original comments and your distortions regularly if you refuse to do either. There is net.precedent for this in the case of blatant misrepresentations.) >Perhaps you’re not looking at the big picture, Russ. Plot the price >of gas since the dawn of the automobile. I think you’ll find the >general trend is upward.
In dollars, or in constant dollars? If you plot the price of copper, wheat, rubber, oranges, any commodity you care to name except electronics, I’ll wager the price has had a general upward trend before factoring out inflation. Comparing to the average wage (buying power of the worker) tends to give a very different picture, and you certainly haven’t looked at it. >By George, I think he’s got it! :-) Really, though, CAFE standards >*do* make sense if you want to encourage more efficient cars. Fuels >taxes make sense if you want to encourage reduced consumption. Why do >you seem so incapable of realizing that I support both?
"Well, we really want to get the corn to grow, so we’ll spend $10,000 on irrigation pipe, and hire three rain-dancers at $35,000/year to help. The rain-dancers don’t get much corn to grow compared to the irrigation pipe, but we really want to encourage both corn growth and rainfall." (Two points for anyone who notes that the rain-dancers are likely to be a waste of money for the benefit. Ditto CAFE standards.) I’m quite capable of realizing that your avowed purpose and the ultimate effect of the policy you advocate are likely to be quite different. Are you? The perversity of CAFE standards can and does encourage: – Driving more. (It costs less per mile, so people increase their travel. Urban sprawl, freeway crowding and traffic casualties result.) – Driving older cars longer. (They remain cheap to drive. The auto fleet’s age is rising.) – Switching to vehicles not restricted by CAFE. (Pickups, minivans and "sport-utility" vehicles don’t count against the quota, and can thus be bigger on the average. Two points for anyone who can tell what the fastest-growing segment of the new vehicle market was this decade.) Advocating a policy which is ineffective given the demonstrated tendencies of the motoring public is nonsensical at best. Advocating an ineffective measure as part of a larger policy is equally so. >Who am I to care? I’m a citizen of planet Earth, that’s who I am. I >consider it my duty to fight inefficiency. You may not agree with my >crusade, but I’m not going to go away. Perhaps some day in the future >when pollution is no longer a threat we can relax the efficiency >requirements. Until then, it makes no sense to let people waste >resources and pollute wantonly.
In other words, it matters not how much people use, you feel qualified to judge the "efficiency" of that use according to your own lights. To do this, you equate apples and oranges; a Geo Metro is "more efficient" than a Buick Wagon, but the Geo cannot substitute for the wagon in many roles, so it arguably has zero efficiency for those uses. Your definition is too narrow. My definition is simple. If people find a way to do what they need to do with less, that’s fine. If they need a Buick Roadmaster at 16 MPG city, but only drive it 30 miles a week, they are being more efficient than if they use a Geo Metro to go 200 miles a week. My definition includes lifestyle changes, yours is blind to them. You also feel qualified to define "pollution" any way you like it. For instance, if a Lincoln and a Geo both emit .2 grams of CO per mile, and they both burn a gallon of gas, the Lincoln will emit roughly 5 grams of CO while the Geo will emit roughly 12 grams. That’s a funny pollution reduction you got there, looks like a pollution increase to me. I’m afraid I can’t compete with the kind of arrogance which lets you re-define "pollution", "efficiency", and other things in Newspeak terms. All I can do is badger you with inconvenient facts. >Repeat after me: Dave wants *both* CAFE *and* higher fuel taxes.
Even after being shown the results of CAFE, you still want it. This is depressing. I am pleased to learn that ridiculous CAFE standards are not politically possible right now. I am also pleased to learn that higher fuel taxes are a political reality. Washington appears to be taking the sensible, workable course (highly unusual). >No I haven’t, I’ve supported higher fuel taxes *too* as a way of >directly discouraging consumption.
Yet you persist in adding a higher-cost, lower-benefit element to your list of demands, when a bit more of the more cost-effective element would accomplish the same. One can only ponder why. >It doesn’t happen. Look at American buying patterns after fuel >price shocks. (Oh, I forgot, you can’t read history books.) >Well, I’ll tell you what happened: Toyota Corollas became very >popular, and gas guzzlers were suddenly passe’. >But the story doesn’t end there. Gas prices dropped, and cars got >larger and larger. Only CAFE prevented the bottom from dropping out >of the MPG market. Until Iraq entered the picture…
The same Washington which imposed CAFE rules (leading to cheap fuel and demand for gas-guzzlers such as the Infiniti Q45) could have imposed fuel taxes and eliminated the incipient problem. Today, as in 1973, people are suddenly more interested in efficiency. Here’s PROOF POSITIVE: – Sales of light trucks are down 8.2%, cars up 1%. (WSJ.) Note that light trucks are not CAFE controlled and sales were growing rapidly this decade. (See note above on market and motorist perversity.) – In August 1990, subcompacts took 16.5% of the market for autos. In January-July 1990, they took 12.9%. This is a 28% increase. (Figures from Ronald Glantz of Dean Witter.) Note that this change altered the fleet fuel economy UPWARD. Also note that this indicates changed buyer preferences … read more »
Response:
>>- Ford currently sells Escorts at a loss, because the > CAFE points gained allow the sale of Crown Vics for profit. > There is a net profit for the aggregate. >- Ford could build a 58-MPG car here, but could not sell it > for enough money to be worth the CAFE points gained for > the monetary losses they would sustain. There would be > a net loss for the aggregate. >Why? What’s so different between a 58mpg Ford and an Escort?
The technology to build a 58mpg Ford would price it well above the price that most people would pay for a car of such diminutive size and weight.~ >Big cars cost more new and burn more gas than small cars. People that >can afford the luxury of a new big car aren’t likely to be deterred >from such a choice by fuel cost concerns. >What if we ignore CAFE and big, inefficient cars become so popular and >inexpensive that the increased cost to run them due to fuel taxes >doesn’t sufficiently deter their use?
Exactly what is the fear here? Big cars becoming popular? People becoming sufficiently affluent to afford larger cars? Anti-big car phobia? >>>Taxing oil makes people account directly for their oil use, which >>>is what we want. >>Yes, we want that. But that’s not all we want. >Now that you’re implicitly speaking for me, what all do "we" want? >We agree that discouraging fuel waste is a good idea. We have not >agreed on anything else that I am aware of, yet. >Well, er, when I said "we" I meant "We the People", not "you and I". >And what We want is less gasoline usage, less gasoline wastage, fewer >government subsidies of noncompetitive industries, less pollution, >etc.
I doubt that "we" refers to "We the People". The sales figures are sufficient to indicate not all Americans want small cars. *YOU* may make a decision to drive a small car. *OTHERS* however may choose to drive something else. *YOU* certainly do not have the right to advocate regulation nor additional taxation to support your own parochial interests. Nor do you have the right to call your proposals the will of the people by the use of "We the People".~ USENET is a very small population segment, and (thank God) does not, in general reflect the general population. Opinions expressed on the net, therefor cannot be considered opinions of Americans at large, no matter how much support there may be on the net.~ I sincerely doubt that there is much support for increased taxes of any type in the US now. I doubt the economy can withstand an increase of any tax on any necessity. Yes, fuel is a necessity. Without it, goods don’t get produced, or get to market. Services can’t be performed without needed materials or transportation. Increase the cost of providing goods and services, and inflation will ripple through the economy.~ I doubt there is much support for increased CAFE. When availability or price becomes a sufficient concern to people, the will make adjustments on their own. It is not necessary to coerce the population to get them to act in their own self-interest. The achievement of greater fuel efficiency must be shown to be in each person’s own self-interest. — Frank Cannavale III !uunet!ulticorp!frank The Ultimate Corp, E. Hanover, NJ "Yes, you can afford the Trojan 12 Meter that is fiscally irresponsible for you to buy. And I’m not talking about loans here. Banks suck, forget about banks." … "Technically, if the bank owns the boat, then it owns the bilge, and who wants to wipe his banker’s bilge?" – Berkeley "Bonefish" Breathed
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >you are heartless. >You are also dishonest… >To put such words in my mouth is to be a liar. >You ignore history. >However, it is the sort of logic I expect from people under >psychiatric care. >You, sir, are amazing. Irrationally, nonsensically amazing. >(Oh, I forgot, you can’t read history books.) >(Oh, yeah, forgot, you can’t read newspapers…)
Does that set the All-Time Ad Hominem record for a single sci.* posting, or what? — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>>Why? What’s so different between a 58mpg Ford and an Escort? >The technology to build a 58mpg Ford would price it well above the >price that most people would pay for a car of such diminutive size >and weight.
I still don’t see what the big technological difference is between a ‘90 Escort and a ‘90 Metro. Their sizes are comparable. The Geo weighs less, but people are singularly uninterested in the weight of their cars. (Price per pound is not listed in any of the auto comparisons I’ve seen in Consumer Reports, Road & Track, Motor Trend, …) >What if we ignore CAFE and big, inefficient cars become so popular and >inexpensive that the increased cost to run them due to fuel taxes >doesn’t sufficiently deter their use? >Exactly what is the fear here? Big cars becoming popular? People >becoming sufficiently affluent to afford larger cars? Anti-big car >phobia?
Certainly there’s a danger of the free market not favoring reduced usage and improved efficiency. >Well, er, when I said "we" I meant "We the People", not "you and I". >And what We want is less gasoline usage, less gasoline wastage, fewer >government subsidies of noncompetitive industries, less pollution, >etc. >I doubt that "we" refers to "We the People".
Hey, pal, when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean. When I said "we" I wasn’t referring to Russ and myself; I was referring to the general public. >The sales figures are >sufficient to indicate not all Americans want small cars.
"Small cars"? Who said anuthing about small cars? I thought we were talking about Corporate Average Fuel Ecomony, not Corporate Avergage Gross Vehicular Weight or Volume. >*YOU* certainly do not have the right to >advocate regulation nor additional taxation to support your own >parochial interests.
Check again. I most certainly *do* have that right. >Nor do you have the right to call your proposals >the will of the people by the use of "We the People".
I have as much right to make that claim as anyone else. Whether I’m right or not will come out in the wash. >I sincerely doubt that there is much support for increased taxes of >any type in the US now.
You may be right. >I doubt there is much support for increased CAFE.
Don’t you watch the news? There seems to be quite a bit of support for increased CAFE on Capitol Hill, which is, of course, where it counts. >It is not necessary to coerce the >population to get them to act in their own self-interest.
Right, so we don’t need all those pesky laws and regulations we’ve been crafting for the past couple hundred years, huh? >The achievement of greater fuel efficiency must be shown to be in >each person’s own self-interest.
That’s already obvious, so why isn’t everyone pursuing it? Could there be other factors involved? — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>>- Ford currently sells Escorts at a loss, because the > CAFE points gained allow the sale of Crown Vics for profit. > There is a net profit for the aggregate. >Let’s see some numbers, Russ. Escort cost, Crown Victoria cost, >annual sales of both, average retail of both. Otherwise this is all >pointless; you just state something and it must be taken as fact.
I don’t have this information. You’ll have to take Ford’s word for it. If they were BS’ing, you can bet somebody would have leaked it. >Why? What’s so different between a 58mpg Ford and an Escort?
They used to build something close; the diesel Escort/Lynx. The difference is (SURPRISE!), almost nobody bought them! >The unemployment and pension payments would promptly bankrupt the >company, benefitting nobody. You, sir, have no heart. >Fine. Because I don’t think the Gov’t should subsidize a >(potentially) noncompetitive industry I’m heartless?
No. Because you want to shift the ONLY product mix which can be built in this country to one which has been NON-PROFITABLE here due to customer preferences (who do you think car companies build for, anyway?), and therefore one which Detroit has no experience making, thereby tilting the playing field in the favor of the imports so that Detroit cannot get the profits in the short term to do the development needed to survive in the long term, putting everyone in Detroit out of work for no useful purpose…. you are heartless. You are also dishonest, because I *never* asked for Detroit to be subsidized. To put such words in my mouth is to be a liar. I asked for FUEL to be taxed to reduce FUEL consumption, and let the makers, buyers and drivers of cars meet that goal in whatever way suits them, rather than a dictate of "YOU’LL DO IT OUR WAY (slower and costlier, too)!" which is CAFE standards. >How does an increased CAFE standard increase the price of fuel? >It doesn’t, that’s just the historical tendancy for prices, gasoline >especially.
You ignore history. Between 1975 and mid-1990, the real price of gasoline fell to historic lows. Of course, if you can claim that I want to subsidize Detroit, I suppose you could claim that too… equivalent truth value. >On the contrary, by decreasing expected future consumption without >affecting cost or supply, it depresses the price of fuel, which >subsidizes the users of old inefficient cars at the cost of the >makers and buyers of newer, more efficient (and cleaner) cars. >Which is why a gas tax should be levied in conjunction with the >increased CAFE. >You are making zero sense here. >What part don’t you understand?
I understand now. The sort of logic which can pull "Russ Cage wants to subsidize Detroit" and "The price of gasoline has historically risen" out of the air can also conclude "CAFE standards make sense, despite the fact that they accomplish less to reduce fuel usage at a much higher cost than taxing fuel does." However, it is the sort of logic I expect from people under psychiatric care. >Then what is the point, if the benefits are smaller and take >longer to achieve than other measures? >To encourage not only reduced consumption of gasoline, but efficient >use of that that is consumed.
To go back to the M1 tank example, if people find M1 tanks useful but only drive them 10 miles/year, who are YOU to tell them they are not being "efficient"? Why do YOU care HOW they achieve reduced consumption, as long as they do? It is not for you to judge what is efficient, unless someone died and appointed you God. People have different requirements for vehicles. They will have different characteristic fuel consumption. If the only thing that matters to you is that people be able to travel at least 40 miles per gallon of fuel, perhaps we should conclude that you have judged that traffic jams, rather than reduced gasoline use, are a good thing. >The problem is that CAFE is a back-door approach which does not >directly encourage efficiency (even discourages efficiency in the >existing fleet), and must therefore have much greater costs to >achieve the same benefit. This is INSANE. >What law is it that says indirect actions cost more than direct ones? >What’s `back-door’ about CAFE? If you want to encourage efficiency, >mandating effiecient cars seems pretty damned direct to me.
I have cited two ways in which CAFE discourages reduced consumption and you ignore them. You quoted them, yet you ignore them. You completely ignore the point that reduced consumption, to avoid the hazards of imported energy and pollution, is the whole point of the exercise, and you blythely skip over it. You, sir, are amazing. Irrationally, nonsensically amazing. >What if we ignore CAFE and big, inefficient cars become so popular and >inexpensive that the increased cost to run them due to fuel taxes >doesn’t sufficiently deter their use?
It doesn’t happen. Look at American buying patterns after fuel price shocks. (Oh, I forgot, you can’t read history books.) Well, I’ll tell you what happened: Toyota Corollas became very popular, and gas guzzlers were suddenly passe’. What if we ignore fuel taxes and people just drive their cars 40% farther, spending the same money and burning the same amount of fuel (and moving farther away from urban centers, promoting urban sprawl)? See, I can play this rhetorical game too. >You, sir, have no heart. Many people who drive inefficient cars have >no reasonable alternative. Telling them to buy a more efficient car >is like telling the homeless to get a job.
So, inefficiency should be subsidized in the name of efficiency? This makes less than zero sense, it makes anti-sense. >You keep harping on the "Tax or CAFE" angle. I’m not a CAFE advocate, >I support a hybrid tax/CAFE approach.
I support an approach to maximize fuel-savings/cost. This means taxing fuel. Needlessly increasing costs just burdens society more, which means that other needs and wants go unmet and unfulfilled. >Well, er, when I said "we" I meant "We the People", not "you and I". >And what We want is less gasoline usage, less gasoline wastage, fewer >government subsidies of noncompetitive industries, less pollution, >etc.
So what you prescribe is something which arguably reduces some wastage in *new vehicles only* (subsidizing excess driving and older, inefficient vehicles), has only an indirect and delayed effect on gasoline consumption, kicks the legs out from under a competitive domestic industry by suddenly making it play on the territory to which its competition is accustomed and it is not, insures that older, dirtier vehicles will be on the road longer than would otherwise be the case by cutting the supply of newer, cleaner replacements to serve the same need… Some funny ideas you got there. I’m sure We the People don’t want that; take a look at what they’ve been buying recently. (Oh, yeah, forgot, you can’t read newspapers…) >No, I don’t favor creating impact for its own sake. That’s a >ridiculous accusation.
That is what advocating CAFE standards amounts to. It has a cost/saved-fuel ratio far higher than fuel taxes; it thus has excess impact for the same benefit as the least-impact method. Anyone advocating CAFE standards favors creating impact for its own sake, QED. — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
>- Ford currently sells Escorts at a loss, because the > CAFE points gained allow the sale of Crown Vics for profit. > There is a net profit for the aggregate.
Let’s see some numbers, Russ. Escort cost, Crown Victoria cost, annual sales of both, average retail of both. Otherwise this is all pointless; you just state something and it must be taken as fact. >- Ford could build a 58-MPG car here, but could not sell it > for enough money to be worth the CAFE points gained for > the monetary losses they would sustain. There would be > a net loss for the aggregate.
Why? What’s so different between a 58mpg Ford and an Escort? >- An increase of the CAFE requirements to 40 MPG would > probably result in a net loss for the company, unless > we had import restrictions, radical price increases on > smaller cars to make them profitable, etc.
So maybe if the situation turns out as gloomy as you predict the Gov’t will come to the rescue. Until then, how do we know you’re not exaggerating? >Is that clear enough to you?
Clear? Yes. Believable? No, not without some substantiation. >Maybe so. But I’m not in the business of worrying about the size of >Ford’s product line. If they can only make five models profitably, >then so be it. >The unemployment and pension payments would promptly bankrupt the >company, benefitting nobody. You, sir, have no heart.
Fine. Because I don’t think the Gov’t should subsidize a (potentially) noncompetitive industry I’m heartless? >Old cars don’t last forever. Fuel usage by ‘77 Cougars has been >dropping steadily for the past dozen years or so. Increasing gas >prices and the high maintenance costs for older cars automatically >discourage their use. >How does an increased CAFE standard increase the price of fuel?
It doesn’t, that’s just the historical tendancy for prices, gasoline especially. >On the contrary, by decreasing expected future consumption without >affecting cost or supply, it depresses the price of fuel, which >subsidizes the users of old inefficient cars at the cost of the >makers and buyers of newer, more efficient (and cleaner) cars.
Which is why a gas tax should be levied in conjunction with the increased CAFE. >You are making zero sense here.
What part don’t you understand? >>You could make an immediate dent in fuel usage by taxing fuel. >Absolutely true. It’s also absolutely unlikely to happen. In case >you hadn’t noticed, taxes are kinda outta favor these days. >Oh, if it were matched with a cut in the FICA tax rate (some good >old populism there) to achieve parity, I’m sure it would fly. The >required political horsetrading has to be done.
Well I’m not so sure, even though I would like to see it happen. >>Show >>me how a CAFE standard can show any benefit whatsoever before it >>can go into effect [....] >Did I ever say they could? >Then what is the point, if the benefits are smaller and take >longer to achieve than other measures?
To encourage not only reduced consumption of gasoline, but efficient use of that that is consumed. >The problem is that CAFE is a back-door approach which does not >directly encourage efficiency (even discourages efficiency in the >existing fleet), and must therefore have much greater costs to >achieve the same benefit. This is INSANE.
What law is it that says indirect actions cost more than direct ones? What’s `back-door’ about CAFE? If you want to encourage efficiency, mandating effiecient cars seems pretty damned direct to me. >>A 40 MPG car driven 4000 miles and a 20 MPG car driven 2000 miles >>both use 100 gallons of fuel, but they get very different treatment >>from the regulators. Why should they? >No reason, it just happens that way. The end result is still >decreased gas consumption. >I read this three times, and it still said the same nonsense. Do >you perhaps want to put that in a meaningful context?
OK, I’ll try. There is no reason that the 40mpg car *should* be treated differently than the 20pmg car, that isn’t a feature of CAFE, it’s an artifact. CAFE regulation encourages effiency by *requiring* more efficient cars. Gas taxes encourage reduced consumption by increasing the cost. They work differently and have different effects. Some differences are intentional and/or inherent, others are consequential. >People who can afford M-1 tanks tend not to be too concerned about the >price of gas. >That was soley for the sake of argument, in case you didn’t notice.
Duh. As was my reply. > Notice that larger cars cost more, and that the people >that drive them tend to be more affluent. A tax-only approach would >Not if the cars are purchased used, they aren’t. There are lots of >old boats on the streets of Detroit.
Big cars cost more new and burn more gas than small cars. People that can afford the luxury of a new big car aren’t likely to be deterred from such a choice by fuel cost concerns. What if we ignore CAFE and big, inefficient cars become so popular and inexpensive that the increased cost to run them due to fuel taxes doesn’t sufficiently deter their use? Don’t worry about the old boats, they’ll go away in due time. >have the biggest impact on those least able to afford the higher gas >prices or buy a more efficient car. >A tax-only approach has the biggest impact on people who drive >inefficient cars many miles, period.
You, sir, have no heart. Many people who drive inefficient cars have no reasonable alternative. Telling them to buy a more efficient car is like telling the homeless to get a job. >It also affects the resale >price of such cars (down), and discourages their USE. From a >consumption standpoint, this is vastly superior to CAFE, which >has zero impact on the use of cars once sold.
You keep harping on the "Tax or CAFE" angle. I’m not a CAFE advocate, I support a hybrid tax/CAFE approach. >>Taxing oil makes people account directly for their oil use, which >>is what we want. >Yes, we want that. But that’s not all we want. >Now that you’re implicitly speaking for me, what all do "we" want? >We agree that discouraging fuel waste is a good idea. We have not >agreed on anything else that I am aware of, yet.
Well, er, when I said "we" I meant "We the People", not "you and I". And what We want is less gasoline usage, less gasoline wastage, fewer government subsidies of noncompetitive industries, less pollution, etc. >Hey, nothing’s perfect. Any approach will negatively impact *some* >group. I say we ought to spread the impact around as much as >possible. >And you are also favoring the creation of "impact" for its own >sake, rather than the absolute minimum required to achieve the >required change? EVERY BIT OF "IMPACT" HURTS SOMEONE. Keeping >it to the least necessary amount is the only compassionate and >sensible thing to do.
No, I don’t favor creating impact for its own sake. That’s a ridiculous accusation. — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>>The problem is getting it BUILT at a price people will PAY. >Oh, like Honda CIVICs? Like VW diesel Rabbits?
Like the (discontinued) Chevette diesel. Et cetera. Nobody bought it, despite ~60 MPG economy. Also notice that VW no longer builds cars in Pennsylvania. All of them are imports now. VW can spread their diesel’s costs across far more units than they can sell here. Ford and GM, for the most part, cannot do this. >Umm, what about {Toyota, Nissan, Honda } who seem to build small >fuel efficient cars in North America at a profit? What is the >difference in labor, materials content, or management?
Notice where they’ve built their plants. California. Tennessee. Kentucky. Closest to Detroit/Flint they’ve gone is the Ford/Mazda plant in Flat Rock, MI which makes Probes and MX-6’s. It is out of commuting distance for most workers from Detroit. The labor force is very different in these regions. However, due to political considerations, Detroit is stuck in Detroit. If Detroit could get rid of union demands for perpetual employment and move the jobs to where the people are willing to work, it could be done. But there would be political pressure to stop it if they tried; Detroit is VERY vulnerable to dictates from Washington. GM/Saturn is trying to best the Japanese by moving to Smyrna, TN. We’ll see if it works. >I’m under the impression that if Ford, GM, etc. (Traditional U.S. manuf.) >couldn’t meet CAFE, then we would end up with more Toyota’s, Honda’s, etc. >but that they might well be built in N.America with N.American labor …
But no N. American engineering, and not many N. American parts. Huge economic dislocations, likely worse than burning the oil. >Has this been the experience at the Toyota, Nissan, and Honda plants >in North America? What is it about the ‘labor laws’ gives special >exemption to them vs. Ford and GM ?
It’s no mystery why the Japanese build plants in right-to-work states. >Why can’t they just get a job at the new {Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc.} >plants that will be built to replace the Ford & GM plants that close?
Because they can’t? (I have little sympathy for them either, but the law is that MY taxes are used to pick up the pieces if their jobs fall apart, so I have an interest in preventing that.) — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
>>Why couldn’t [Ford] sell [Escorts] at a loss, but make up the loss with the >Crown Victoria profits? >That is what they do now, which was in the paragraph you quoted >immediately below. (Do you read what you quote?)
Do *you* read what you write? Does "Believe me, Ford would LOVE to be able to build domestic cars getting 58 MPG if they could make a profit doing it." sound familiar? It’s the statement you made that my comment above applied to. Notice your use of the word "profit". You implied that Ford would produce high-mileage cars domestically only if they could profit from them. So my question remains: would they not be willing to produce domestic cars at loss if it would allow them to produce low-mileage domestic cars at a profit? If that is, in fact, what they’re doing with the Escort, as you mentioned, then your statement above contradicts that. >To drastically >cut the number of larger vehicles Ford could build would require >car price increases across the board, and probably the discontinuing >of many models which could no longer be built in economical quantities.
Maybe so. But I’m not in the business of worrying about the size of Ford’s product line. If they can only make five models profitably, then so be it. >This would do NOTHING to cut fuel usage by the existing vehicle fleet, >BTW, and cars like my old ‘77 Cougar would still be roaming the road >getting 17 MPG on the highway.
Old cars don’t last forever. Fuel usage by ‘77 Cougars has been dropping steadily for the past dozen years or so. Increasing gas prices and the high maintenance costs for older cars automatically discourage their use. >You could make an immediate dent in fuel usage by taxing fuel.
Absolutely true. It’s also absolutely unlikely to happen. In case you hadn’t noticed, taxes are kinda outta favor these days. >Show >me how a CAFE standard can show any benefit whatsoever before it >can go into effect (typically 3 years away to allow for >re-engineering time).
Did I ever say they could? >Further, a CAFE standard does not take >into account the number of miles any given vehicle is driven.
It doesn’t need to, it’s kinda like the way the gas tax approach doesn’t take vehicle efficiency into account. One approach reduces gas usage by making vehicles more efficient; the other by making gas cost more. Both will work. >A 40 MPG car driven 4000 miles and a 20 MPG car driven 2000 miles >both use 100 gallons of fuel, but they get very different treatment >from the regulators. Why should they?
No reason, it just happens that way. The end result is still decreased gas consumption. >Does this make sense to you?
Yep. >How about removing some of the penalties, such as double taxation >of corporate profits and onerous labor regulations, which do not >handicap the foreign auto industry?
I’m all for a "level playing field". >Let’s do both: increase CAFE and tax oil. >No, let’s tax oil, period. If people want to drive M-1 tanks, >but they only go ten miles/year and they use mopeds the rest of >the time, CAFE regulations would just keep people from being >able to buy tanks for whatever they are good for, for no good >reason.
People who can afford M-1 tanks tend not to be too concerned about the price of gas. Notice that larger cars cost more, and that the people that drive them tend to be more affluent. A tax-only approach would have the biggest impact on those least able to afford the higher gas prices or buy a more efficient car. >Taxing oil makes people account directly for their oil use, which >is what we want.
Yes, we want that. But that’s not all we want. >CAFE standards only hit this indirectly, do not >have any effect except on new vehicles, and hurt manufacturers >and workers rather than energy wastrels. They are a BAD IDEA.
Hey, nothing’s perfect. Any approach will negatively impact *some* group. I say we ought to spread the impact around as much as possible. — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>Do *you* read what you write? Does > "Believe me, Ford would LOVE to be able to build domestic cars > getting 58 MPG if they could make a profit doing it." >sound familiar? It’s the statement you made that my comment above >applied to. Notice your use of the word "profit". You implied that >Ford would produce high-mileage cars domestically only if they could >profit from them.
Of course. Would you take your company on a course to bankruptcy? > So my question remains: would they not be willing >to produce domestic cars at loss if it would allow them to produce >low-mileage domestic cars at a profit? If that is, in fact, what >they’re doing with the Escort, as you mentioned, then your statement >above contradicts that.
Only if you read it simplistically. To elaborate: – Ford currently sells Escorts at a loss, because the CAFE points gained allow the sale of Crown Vics for profit. There is a net profit for the aggregate. – Ford could build a 58-MPG car here, but could not sell it for enough money to be worth the CAFE points gained for the monetary losses they would sustain. There would be a net loss for the aggregate. – An increase of the CAFE requirements to 40 MPG would probably result in a net loss for the company, unless we had import restrictions, radical price increases on smaller cars to make them profitable, etc. Is that clear enough to you? >Maybe so. But I’m not in the business of worrying about the size of >Ford’s product line. If they can only make five models profitably, >then so be it.
The unemployment and pension payments would promptly bankrupt the company, benefitting nobody. You, sir, have no heart. >Old cars don’t last forever. Fuel usage by ‘77 Cougars has been >dropping steadily for the past dozen years or so. Increasing gas >prices and the high maintenance costs for older cars automatically >discourage their use.
How does an increased CAFE standard increase the price of fuel? On the contrary, by decreasing expected future consumption without affecting cost or supply, it depresses the price of fuel, which subsidizes the users of old inefficient cars at the cost of the makers and buyers of newer, more efficient (and cleaner) cars. You are making zero sense here. >You could make an immediate dent in fuel usage by taxing fuel. >Absolutely true. It’s also absolutely unlikely to happen. In case >you hadn’t noticed, taxes are kinda outta favor these days.
Oh, if it were matched with a cut in the FICA tax rate (some good old populism there) to achieve parity, I’m sure it would fly. The required political horsetrading has to be done. >Show >me how a CAFE standard can show any benefit whatsoever before it >can go into effect [....] >Did I ever say they could?
Then what is the point, if the benefits are smaller and take longer to achieve than other measures? >Further, a CAFE standard does not take >into account the number of miles any given vehicle is driven. >It doesn’t need to, it’s kinda like the way the gas tax approach >doesn’t take vehicle efficiency into account. One approach reduces >gas usage by making vehicles more efficient; the other by making gas >cost more. Both will work.
The problem is that CAFE is a back-door approach which does not directly encourage efficiency (even discourages efficiency in the existing fleet), and must therefore have much greater costs to achieve the same benefit. This is INSANE. >A 40 MPG car driven 4000 miles and a 20 MPG car driven 2000 miles >both use 100 gallons of fuel, but they get very different treatment >from the regulators. Why should they? >No reason, it just happens that way. The end result is still >decreased gas consumption.
I read this three times, and it still said the same nonsense. Do you perhaps want to put that in a meaningful context? >People who can afford M-1 tanks tend not to be too concerned about the >price of gas.
That was soley for the sake of argument, in case you didn’t notice. > Notice that larger cars cost more, and that the people >that drive them tend to be more affluent. A tax-only approach would
Not if the cars are purchased used, they aren’t. There are lots of old boats on the streets of Detroit. >have the biggest impact on those least able to afford the higher gas >prices or buy a more efficient car.
A tax-only approach has the biggest impact on people who drive inefficient cars many miles, period. It also affects the resale price of such cars (down), and discourages their USE. From a consumption standpoint, this is vastly superior to CAFE, which has zero impact on the use of cars once sold. >Taxing oil makes people account directly for their oil use, which >is what we want. >Yes, we want that. But that’s not all we want.
Now that you’re implicitly speaking for me, what all do "we" want? We agree that discouraging fuel waste is a good idea. We have not agreed on anything else that I am aware of, yet. >Hey, nothing’s perfect. Any approach will negatively impact *some* >group. I say we ought to spread the impact around as much as >possible.
And you are also favoring the creation of "impact" for its own sake, rather than the absolute minimum required to achieve the required change? EVERY BIT OF "IMPACT" HURTS SOMEONE. Keeping it to the least necessary amount is the only compassionate and sensible thing to do. — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
>>> Methinks these "international energy experts" are full of it. Raising CAFE to >> 40 MPG will drive most current US car models off the market, and there is >> nothing to replace them except, MAYBE, Escort Ponys. Very little else gets >> 40 MPG. >Then let the manufacturers develop something that at least meets 40 mpg. It is >possible. >The problem is getting it BUILT at a price people will PAY.
Oh, like Honda CIVICs? Like VW diesel Rabbits? >If US manufacturers can’t (or don’t want to) meet the challenge, that’s their >problem. >You’re talking about the Canadian auto workers, too, bozo. >And they DO meet the challenge…. but not with cars built here. >The problem is the situation in North America, and I’ll wager >most of it is due to labor.
Umm, what about {Toyota, Nissan, Honda } who seem to build small fuel efficient cars in North America at a profit? What is the difference in labor, materials content, or management? I’m under the impression that if Ford, GM, etc. (Traditional U.S. manuf.) couldn’t meet CAFE, then we would end up with more Toyota’s, Honda’s, etc. but that they might well be built in N.America with N.American labor … > Someone else will do it. US car manufacturers don’t have my >sympathy. >Are you prepared to change the labor laws so that GM and Ford >can build cars at a price competitive with Suzuki? Wages here >would then be LOWER than in Japan, because the American/Canadian >auto worker is not as productive as a Japanese.
Has this been the experience at the Toyota, Nissan, and Honda plants in North America? What is it about the ‘labor laws’ gives special exemption to them vs. Ford and GM ? >You’re gonna make a lot of UAW/CAW people VERY unhappy no matter >what you do. They won’t take kindly to having their wages slashed >and/or most of their number laid off.
Kind of like the steel workers some years ago? Or the thousands of other workers displaced from jobs every year (month?)? Life is tough. My Greatgrandad was a Blacksmith. I work with computers. Times change. That is the meaning of a ‘free market’ society. There are no guarentees, even in the labor market. Compete or loose. I don’t have to like it, I just have to accept it and move on. >How much are you willing to >pay in taxes for welfare payments for them? savings insurance to >pick up the tab on home mortgage defaults? riots in the streets? >(Yes, ultimately energy concerns become economic concerns, which >in turn become social concerns.)
Why can’t they just get a job at the new {Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc.} plants that will be built to replace the Ford & GM plants that close? Maybe it’s the Silicon Valley mindset, but if a company out here survives 10 years, it’s a big deal. If someone has been at a company for 5 years, or been doing the same job for 10 years, it’s a bit strange. No body expects their job to be a ’sure thing’, and WHEN (not if) the need arises, you move on to the next company or industry. — ‘Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.’ - Goethe I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Response:
>Why couldn’t [Ford] sell [Escorts] at a loss, but make up the loss with the >Crown Victoria profits?
That is what they do now, which was in the paragraph you quoted immediately below. (Do you read what you quote?) To drastically cut the number of larger vehicles Ford could build would require car price increases across the board, and probably the discontinuing of many models which could no longer be built in economical quantities. This would do NOTHING to cut fuel usage by the existing vehicle fleet, BTW, and cars like my old ‘77 Cougar would still be roaming the road getting 17 MPG on the highway. You could make an immediate dent in fuel usage by taxing fuel. This would change vehicle usage patterns overnight; people who drive lots of miles and consume more fuel would drive slower or trade to more efficient vehicles (or have strong pressure to do so). Show me how a CAFE standard can show any benefit whatsoever before it can go into effect (typically 3 years away to allow for re-engineering time). Further, a CAFE standard does not take into account the number of miles any given vehicle is driven. A 40 MPG car driven 4000 miles and a 20 MPG car driven 2000 miles both use 100 gallons of fuel, but they get very different treatment from the regulators. Why should they? Does this make sense to you? >So because the U.S. auto industry can’t compete with the rest of the >world *on its home turf*, we should not pursue higher-mileage cars? >If the auto industry has problems–whether they’re internal or due to >"US law and labor practices"–we should address those problems, not >subsidize a noncompetetive industry.
How about removing some of the penalties, such as double taxation of corporate profits and onerous labor regulations, which do not handicap the foreign auto industry? >Let’s do both: increase CAFE and tax oil.
No, let’s tax oil, period. If people want to drive M-1 tanks, but they only go ten miles/year and they use mopeds the rest of the time, CAFE regulations would just keep people from being able to buy tanks for whatever they are good for, for no good reason. Taxing oil makes people account directly for their oil use, which is what we want. CAFE standards only hit this indirectly, do not have any effect except on new vehicles, and hurt manufacturers and workers rather than energy wastrels. They are a BAD IDEA. — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
>>Why couldn’t [Ford] sell [Escorts] at a loss, but make up the loss with the >Crown Victoria profits? >That is what they do now, which was in the paragraph you quoted >immediately below. (Do you read what you quote?)
Do *you* read what you write? Does "Beliefe me, Ford would LOVE to be able to build domestic cars getding 58 MPG if they could make a profit doing it." sound familiar? It’s the statement you made that my comment above applied to. Notice your use of the word "profit". You implied that Ford would produce high-mileage cars domestically only if they could profit from them. So my question remains: would they not be willing to produce domestic cars at loss if it would allow them to produce low-mileage domestic cars at a profit? If that is, in fact, what they’re doing with the Escort, as you mentioned, then your statement above contradicts that. >To drastically >cut the number of larger vehicles Ford could build would require >cab price increases across the board, and probably the discontinuing >of many models which could no longer be built in economical auantities.
Maybe so. But I’m not in the business of worrying about the size of Ford’s product line. If they can only make five models profitably, then so be it. >This would do NOTHING to cut fuel usage by the existing vehicle fleet, >BTW, and cars like my old ‘77 Cougar would still be roaming the road >getting 17 MPG on the highway.
Old cars don’t last forever. Fuel usage by ‘77 Cougars has been dropping steadily for the past dozen years or so. Increasing gas prices and the high maintenance costs for older cars automatically discourage their use. >You could make an immediate dent in fuel usage by taxing fuel.
Absolutely true. It’s also absolutely unlikely to happen. In case you hadn’t noticed, taxes are kinda outta favor these days. >Show >me hog a CAFE standard can show any benefit whatsoever before it >can go into effect (typically 3 years away to allow for >re-engineering time).
Did I ever say they could? >Further, a CAFE standabd does not take >into account the number of miles any given vehicle is driven.
It doesn’t need to, it’s kinda like the way the gas tax approach doesn’t take vehicle efficiency into account. One approach reduces gas usage by making vehicles more efficient; the other by making gas cost more. Both will work. >A 40 MPG car driven 4000 miles and a 20 MPG car driven 2000 miles >both use 100 gallons of fuel, but they get very different treatment >from the regulators. Why should they?
No reason, it just happens that way. The end result is still decreased gas consumption. >Does this make sense to you?
Yep. >How about removing some of the penalties, such as double taxation >of corporate profits and onerous labor regulations, which do not >handicap the foreign auto industry?
I’m all for a "level playing field". >Let’s do both: increase CAFE and tax oil. >No, let’s tax oil, period. If people want to drive M-1 tanks, >but they only go ten miles/year and they use mopeds the rest of >the time, CAFE regulations would just keep people from being >able to buy tanks for whatever they are good for, for no good >reason.
People who can afford M-1 tanks tend not to be too concerned about the price of gas. Notice that larger cars cost more, and that the people that drive them tend to be more affluent. A tax-only approach would have the biggest impact on those least able to afford the higher gas prices or buy a more efficient car. >Taxing oil makes peo`le account directly for their oil use, which >is what we want.
Yes, we want that. But that’s not all we want. >CAFE standards only hit this indirectly, do not >have any effect except on new vehicles, and hurt manufacturers >and workers rather than energy wastrels. They are a BAD IDEA.
Hey, nothing’s perfect. Any approach will negatively impact *some* group. I say we ought to spread the impact around as much as possible. — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>Believe me, Ford would LOVE to be able to build domestic cars getting >58 MPG if they could make a profit doing it. It would radically >improve the company’s bottom line, because they could sell more Crown >Victorias and Mustangs and other high-dollar cars and still meet CAFE >requirements (which are the driving force here).
Why couldn’t they sell them at a loss, but make up the loss with the Crown Victoria profits? >Unfortunately, the reality of the US auto industry is that high-MPG >cars cannot be built here for a cost that American consumers are >willing to pay. Remember, every Escort is sold AT A LOSS! Ford has >no trouble building CAFE-positive cars elsewhere, so I think the >problem is in US law and labor practices. Unless you are proposing >to change these, a radical increase in CAFE requirements would >merely kill the US auto industry.
So because the U.S. auto industry can’t compete with the rest of the world *on its home turf*, we should not pursue higher-mileage cars? If the auto industry has problems–whether they’re internal or due to "US law and labor practices"–we should address those problems, not subsidize a noncompetetive industry. >On the other hand, a tax on oil (rebated through cuts in payroll and >income taxes?) would cut consumption without mandating choices. It >might get New England to put in pipelines for gas and switch away >from heating oil for homes, for example.
Let’s do both: increase CAFE and tax oil. — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>The car I bought is a Geo Metro XFi.
Me too. Do you have the blue or the white? :-) >On my semi-rural/suburban commute, I’m getting 55-57 mpg.
I’ve got nearly 10,000 miles on mine now. Overall mileage is about 55 mpg, but I’ve gotten over 57 mpg on a couple tanks recently. Just another netter who’s cut his gas usage in half with no lifestyle change… — Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
Response:
>> Methinks these "international energy experts" are full of it. Raising CAFE to > 40 MPG will drive most current US car models off the market, and there is > nothing to replace them except, MAYBE, Escort Ponys. Very little else gets > 40 MPG. >Then let the manufacturers develop something that at least meets 40 mpg. It is >possible.
I know it. US engineers can design such cars quite well. Look at the Festiva. This is not the problem. The problem is getting it BUILT at a price people will PAY. >If US manufacturers can’t (or don’t want to) meet the challenge, that’s their >problem.
You’re talking about the Canadian auto workers, too, bozo. And they DO meet the challenge…. but not with cars built here. The problem is the situation in North America, and I’ll wager most of it is due to labor. > Someone else will do it. US car manufacturers don’t have my >sympathy.
Are you prepared to change the labor laws so that GM and Ford can build cars at a price competitive with Suzuki? Wages here would then be LOWER than in Japan, because the American/Canadian auto worker is not as productive as a Japanese. You’re gonna make a lot of UAW/CAW people VERY unhappy no matter what you do. They won’t take kindly to having their wages slashed and/or most of their number laid off. How much are you willing to pay in taxes for welfare payments for them? savings insurance to pick up the tab on home mortgage defaults? riots in the streets? (Yes, ultimately energy concerns become economic concerns, which in turn become social concerns.) Having "someone else" do it may well hurt more than you are willing to tolerate. Better to remove the barriers in the way of doing it ourselves, such as too-cheap gasoline. — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
>The car I bought is a Geo Metro XFi. It is sold by Chevy, built by >Suzuki.
^^^^^^ Japanese. Ditto the Chevy Sprint. >more expensive. Cars like the Ford Festiva and the Subaru Justy
^^^Brazil^^^ ^^^Japan^^^^ >are not even competitive, with Highway EPA ratings of around 41mpg >(compared to Geo Metro XFi’s highway rating of 58mpg).
Believe me, Ford would LOVE to be able to build domestic cars getting 58 MPG if they could make a profit doing it. It would radically improve the company’s bottom line, because they could sell more Crown Victorias and Mustangs and other high-dollar cars and still meet CAFE requirements (which are the driving force here). As a matter of fact, Ford is decreasing the domestic content of the Crown Victoria to < 75%, allowing it to be classed as an IMPORT car and be counted against the IMPORT, not domestic, CAFE quota. (Such is the perverse effect of CAFE regulations.) Unfortunately, the reality of the US auto industry is that high-MPG cars cannot be built here for a cost that American consumers are willing to pay. Remember, every Escort is sold AT A LOSS! Ford has no trouble building CAFE-positive cars elsewhere, so I think the problem is in US law and labor practices. Unless you are proposing to change these, a radical increase in CAFE requirements would merely kill the US auto industry. On the other hand, a tax on oil (rebated through cuts in payroll and income taxes?) would cut consumption without mandating choices. It might get New England to put in pipelines for gas and switch away from heating oil for homes, for example. — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
> Methinks these "international energy experts" are full of it. Raising CAFE to > 40 MPG will drive most current US car models off the market, and there is > nothing to replace them except, MAYBE, Escort Ponys. Very little else gets > 40 MPG.
Then let the manufacturers develop something that at least meets 40 mpg. It is possible. I’ve seen those little Sprints passing traffic on the freeways, so you can have fuel-efficient cars that have acceptable driving characteristics. (Acceptable means it meets general driving requirements.) If US manufacturers can’t (or don’t want to) meet the challenge, that’s their problem. Someone else will do it. US car manufacturers don’t have my sympathy.
Response:
>You might find it interesting to know that Ford sells every >Escort at a loss, in order to get enough CAFE points to sell >profit-positive but CAFE-negative LTD’s and such. Ford is >trying very hard to find a way to build a car which is both >profit-positive (makes money) and CAFE-positive (gets more >than the CAFE-standard fuel economy).
Could someone please explain to me (who is advocate of CAFE) why it is worse to have A: GM, FORD etc. to make cars with say CAFE = 25 and Toyota, Honda to have CAFE = 35 (since this is the vehicle mix they make best). Than it is to have B: All auto makers to have CAFE = 30. Is forcing all car companies to make the full range of cars better than having each specialize – just to make marginal gains in fuel economy? Seems to me other incentives for saving fuel (such as high fuel prices) produce far larger gains with far fewer distortions to the economy. Jim These opinions my employer would never agree with!
Response:
Someone with Ford experience recently questioned the ability of the industry to produce fuel efficient cars, so I thought I’d relate my experience, having recently switched to a fuel-efficient commuter car. The car I bought is a Geo Metro XFi. It is sold by Chevy, built by Suzuki. Suzuki sells a "Swift" which looks the same, but has a larger engine (and gets worse mileage). On my semi-rural/suburban commute, I’m getting 55-57 mpg. It’s quite peppy (I have a 5-speed manual trans), and has no trouble getting up hills (only for the steeper ones do I have to downshift FROM OVERDRIVE). I’m 6′3", and find the front seats VERY comfortable and roomy, including headroom (in this regard, it’s much better than my ‘82 Subaru). Its back seat has 2 seatbelts, and easily holds my kids (and the 10 year old is getting remarkably close to adult size). There’s really room for another small kid in the middle, but I’d have to install extra seatbelts if I wanted to do that. Behind the rear seat is room for 7 grocery bags (with rear hatch access). The rear seat folds down to trade passenger space for cargo space. Oh, and the car lists for $5995 (without stereo). I bought this car for its mileage (which is currently the best in the US). The second best is the Honda CRX HF, which is only a 2-seater and is more expensive. Cars like the Ford Festiva and the Subaru Justy are not even competitive, with Highway EPA ratings of around 41mpg (compared to Geo Metro XFi’s highway rating of 58mpg). My point? Simply that fuel efficient cars not only can be BUILT, but can be BOUGHT TODAY. The CAFE issue is about getting more of them built/sold than the 18-25mpg alternatives that are being sold. And the key is incentive. Our fuel prices are so low that Americans (who, on the whole, seem to be motivated more strongly by financial and status factors than environmental and health factors) do not value fuel efficiency in cars very highly. When gas prices were high they DID value fuel efficiency. So either we raise fuel prices (e.g. with something like the Carbon Tax being discussed in DC) or we mandate sales levels (e.g. with something like CAFE). Or both. Steve
Response:
[on raising CAFE standards by some 45%] >All of this can be done with currently >available technology with no sacrifice of power, safety, size or >comfort.
Okay, as someone who works in the auto industry, diligently trying to develop engine control code to ensure that the car operates cleanly, peppily and EFFICIENTLY as possible, I have a very simple question for you: HOW? You might find it interesting to know that Ford sells every Escort at a loss, in order to get enough CAFE points to sell profit-positive but CAFE-negative LTD’s and such. Ford is trying very hard to find a way to build a car which is both profit-positive (makes money) and CAFE-positive (gets more than the CAFE-standard fuel economy). We don’t know how, NOW, with the 27.5 MPG standard. But we’d sure love to. Methinks these "international energy experts" are full of it. Raising CAFE to 40 MPG will drive most current US car models off the market, and there is nothing to replace them except, MAYBE, Escort Ponys. Very little else gets 40 MPG. — Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS) I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don’t.
Response:
The open letter to President Bush that follows was signed by 190 national and international energy experts concerned about the wisdom of going to war as a way of assuring the world’s access to oil. In our view it is much wiser to use the means at hand to reduce our dependence on oil than to spill blood in ultimately vain attempts to control access and prices. The signers come from a a wide range of backgrounds, including university and national laboratory research centers, public and private utilities, local, state and federal governmental agencies, nonprofit agencies and private consulting corporations. These experts were gathered at the fifth biannual conference on Energy Efficiency in Buildings sponsored by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The conference was held at the Asilomar Conference Center, in Pacific Grove, California, August 19 – 25, 1990. The statement in this letter about the effect of raising auto efficiency standards is actually quite conservative. Iraq and Kuwait supply about 700,000 barrels of oil per day to the US or about 250 million barrels per year. Increasing fleet mileage to 40 MPG would cut consumption by over 1.5 billion barrels of oil per year. This is about 1/2 of all US oil imports. This improvement in efficiency could be accomplished at an average cost of only 52 cents per gallon of gasoline saved over seven years of driving the car. This means that it would cost the consumer far less to buy and operate an efficient car than a current inefficient car. All of this can be done with currently available technology with no sacrifice of power, safety, size or comfort. The US is already spending a million dollars per hour on the Iraq situation. If it breaks out into a shooting war, estimates are that the cost will climb to one billion dollars per day. The oil gained by this exercise will be incredibly expensive. The real costs to the US of Kuwaiti oil will probably be hundreds of dollars per barrel by the time all of the military costs are added in. The energy efficiency and renewable energy equivalents of that oil are far cheaper. This letter has been sent to President Bush, Secretary of Energy Watkins, the Speakers of the House and Senate, and a couple of dozen newspapers around the country. Feel free to pass it on to your local paper and your legislator (see the previous message about the opportunity for lobbying on auto fuel efficiency legislation). Tom Lent To President George Bush, As citizens and energy professionals, we are deeply concerned that our country may go to war in the Middle East, allegedly over petroleum supplies. Our dependence on oil makes us increasingly inclined to use military force to protect vulnerable foreign supplies. Energy conservation, efficiency improvements and the use of alternative and renewable fuels could substantially reduce this dangerous and costly dependence. The current crisis is yet another illustration of how chronic dependence on oil jeopardizes our national security, weakens our economy and destroys our environment. Military solutions are costly in lives and dollars.and still leave us vulnerable to the next oil market destabilization. Proposed supply solutions, such as offshore and Alaskan oil drilling or increased use of nuclear power and coal, cannot meet either our short or long term needs, are expensive, and are environmentally unacceptable. In contrast, energy efficiency, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources improve our national security, our environment, and our economy. We have proven methods for saving oil at less cost than obtaining new supplies. For example: * Increasing efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon for autos and 30 miles per gallon for light trucks will save far more oil than we import from Iraq and Kuwait. * A reduction of 3 miles per day per vehicle will save the same amount immediately. * An investment in an energy efficient window factory will save as much energy as would be produced by an offshore drilling platform costing 100 times as much. There are many more ways to meet our energy needs through efficiency and alternatives. We call on our leadership to invest in energy efficiency, not in war. **** The above statement was signed by 190 attendees of the Conference of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, during August of 1990 in Pacific Grove, California. Affiliations are for identification only Wolansa Adefris Seattle City Light Hashem Akbari Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Scott Akin City of Palo Alto Karen Anderson Anderson Associates Ren Anderson US DOE Solar Energy Research Institute Kari Asmus El Cerrito, CA Barbara Atkinson Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Celina Atkinson Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Barbara Atlas Arlington, VA George Baird Victoria University Rana Belshe Residential Energy Conservation CG Paul Berkowitz Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. Scott Bernstein Center for Neighborhood Technology Michael Blasnik GRASP Stanley Boghosian Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Calvin Broomhead City of San Francisco Bureau of Energy Sharon Brown Montgomery County Government Eugene Burns US DOE Energy Information Administration Richard Burns Southern California Edison John Busch Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Joseph Cade Bonneville Power Administration Judith Calder Marina del Rey, CA Dan Calder, MD San Anselmo, CA Charles Campbell Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Andrea Carlson Nuclear Information & Resource Service Alex Cassella Sangamon State University Alfred Cavallo Princeton University Peter Cebon Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul Centolella OH Office of Consumers’ Council Bruce Chamberlain City of Berkeley Energy Office Mark Cherniak Int’l Inst for Energy Conservation Susan Coakley Conservation Law Foundation Jeanne Connelly Chevy Chase, Maryland Martin Cummings New York Public Service Commission Deborah Dagang Cambridge Systematics Susan Davis Am Cncl for an Energy Efficient Economy Mary Jane DeLaHunt BR Associates, Inc. Joseph Deringer The Deringer Group Linda Dethman Dethman & Associates John Douglas Washington State Energy Office Peter Dreyfus Metropolitan Energy Center Timothy Dunsworth Cntr for Energy & the Urban Environment Peter duPont Home Energy Magazine Charles Eberdt Washington State Energy Office Linda Ecker ERCE, Inc. David Eggleton Conservation Law Foundation Scott Englander Princeton University Elizabeth Evans Bonneville Power Administration Gary Fernstrom Pacific Gas & Electric Maria Figueroa Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Jane Finleon Public Service Company of Colorado James Florance BOC Technical Center Luisa Freeman Freeman Research Resources Rafael Friedmann University of California – Berkeley Howard Geller Am Cncl for an Energy Efficient Economy Edward Gerardot Indiana CAP Directors Association Peter Gladhart Michigan State University Kenneth Goeke California Energy Commission Frederick Gordon Pacific Energy Associates Lois Gordon Washington State Energy Office Tom Gorin California Energy Commission Kathleen Greely Virginia Polytechnic Institute Steve Greenberg University of California – Berkeley Jeff Haberl Texas A & M University Bruce Hackett University of California – Davis Dr. Jeff Hammerlund Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Ed Hamzawi California Energy Commission Kristin Heinemeier University of California – Berkeley Merillee Herrigan Alliance To Save Energy Martha Hewett Cntr for Energy & the Urban Environment Richard Howarth Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory William Hill Ball State University Chris Huizenga University of Minnesota Patrice Ignelzi ADSMP Lee Johnson Ecotope/RAIN/Western Sun Lucy Johnson University of California – Berkeley Bruce Jones Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. William Jones Ontario Hydro Adrienne Kandel California Energy Commission Michael Kaplan Kaplan Engineering John Katrakis Center for Neighborhood Technology Amira Kellow Monte Seremo, California Dr. Mazin … read more »
Response:
Posted in Home Mortgage | 
No Comments » | 
) 